Extract from a speech made in the House of Assembly on 21 May 1962 during the second reading of the General Law Amendment Bill

When South Africa became a Republic, subversive elements intensified their attack on South Africa and her peoples. At this time Adv. Vorster per­formed a monumental task in combating communism in South Africa and left no stone unturned to bring to book communist saboteurs who were planning the overthrow of the South African government. This Bill was aimed at rendering communists harmless, at taking away opportunities and means of propaganda previously at their disposal, and at punishing sabotage as effectively as possible. Adv. Vorster effectively and contemptuously rejected all attempts at ridiculing him as minister for over-emphasising the security of the state. His action in combating the communist threat proved well-founded and far-sighted as is proved by incidents such as Rivonia and various others.

The United Party and its Press have chosen to call this Bill which I now want to introduce the Sabotage Bill. I was not invited to the christening ceremony when the Bill was given this name, but it enjoys my wholehearted approval if hon. members opposite and their Press want to call the Bill by that name. With this name in mind, some people - to whom I will come later - thought fit to set afoot an agitation against this Bill outside the House. The emphasis having been laid on the sabotage aspect of this Bill, it is just as well that hon. members should bear in mind that the agitation being tormented in all kinds of ways is not against this or that particular provision of the Bill, but in fact against the sabotage aspect of it. One of the first telegrams I received in connection with this Bill read as follows -

I protest strongly against barbaric and most outrageous Bill. Deserves condemnation by all right-thinking people the world over. Not prepared to be intimidated by Nationalists.

This telegram comes from "Comrade" Walter Situlu, the former secretary-general of the ANC. If one studies the agitation made against tills Bill, it becomes clear that the people who are opposed to the Bill in the first place - and let me say this, that they have every reason to be opposed to it - are the communists. A second group from whom I received protests in this regard is the Indian National Congress and its affiliated bodies. I also received protests from the Congress of Democrats, which has become the mouthpiece of the communist wing in South Africa. I also received protests from the Black Sash movement, which is trying to regain their lost prestige in this way. I also saw in the Press the protests of the Progressive Party, a party which is not only dangerous, as I have said on previous occasions, but also has conducted itself in a very irresponsible manner lately. I also notice that the National Union ¹ - or at least, the two remaining members of that Union - are also opposed to that Bill. I further notice that the English Press in South Africa has attacked me and this Bill in the most unbridled language, in passing, I want to say this, that the English-language Press has never yet conduct­ed itself in such an unworthy and inciting manner as it has done just recently.

We waited to see what the attitude of the official Opposition would be. The first indication came from the very newest member of the United Party, viz. the hon. member for Musgrave. ² I do not know whether, in regard to this matter, he has to set the tone or not. I also saw that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave an interview to a Sunday newspaper. The headline of the Sunday Times which immediately caught my eye in regard to this interview was, "Graaff condemns Sabotage", and I really hope that I read it correctly, and I was indeed grateful until, however, I saw the word "Bill" behind the word "Sabotage". At this stage I still do not know what the attitude of the official Opposition is, and therefore, I will not voice any criticism in this regard until I have to reply to the debate. The question one has to ask oneself, particularly in reference to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was unnecessary to introduce such a Bill in this House, is why it is in fact necessary to introduce this Bill. And when posing that question, one is of course compelled also to say what this Bill is not, particularly because so many interpretations of it have appeared in the Press and so many motives have been ascribed to me and to others in this regard. I therefore want to say right at the outset, and I do not want us to have any misunderstanding in this regard to­night, or at any time during the course of this debate, that this Bill is no panic measure. On the contrary, it is a coolly calculated and logical measure. It is true that it is a measure which I would prefer not to introduce, for many reasons which I will give later. It is, however, a measure which is necessary in the circumstances, and here I definitely do no want to be an alarmist, but simply want to put the facts before hon. members calmly, so that they themselves can judge as to the necessity or otherwise for introducing this measure. Having said that, I immediately want to reject with the contempt it deserves, all personal motives ascribed to me and others by an inimical Press.

What is the background of this measure? What is the position in South Africa to-night from a security point of view? I want to say immediately that the country is quiet, calm and peaceful, in spite of the artificial agitation created outside. As I say, the country is calm and quiet. I heartily want to agree with Lord Malvern and others who said that South Africa is one of the most peaceful places in the whole of Africa. I should like to keep it so. Because the country is peaceful, and because I want to keep it that way, I am introducing this measure timeously. I believe it to be my duty to introduce this measure now, as I shall explain in a moment. If I am asked what the reasons are, in spite of the propaganda emanating from Press and pulpit and all other sources, why South Africa is to-day still quiet and peaceful, I can give many reasons. For the purposes of this Bill, however, I want to mention only two. The first is that the measures taken to raise the standard of living in past years by this Government, and the opportunity for em­ployment created by this Government for all population groups, and particularly for the coloured population groups, are now beginning to bear fruit. In the second place, I am convinced that in the purely political sphere the advantages inherent in our policy of separate development for all population groups in this country are being realized. For that very reason the communists and their camp-followers have become so active just recently. They do not want to see this peace and quiet; they do not want to see this progress; they do not want to see peaceful co-existence in South Africa, and that is why just recently they have become so active. That appears very clearly from all the docu­ments submitted to me from time to time in my official capacity, that they realize that their plans are going awry, and that they will have to take speedy action if they want to create chaos and anarchy, which is their ultimate object, in South Africa.

Every hon. member, on whichever side of the House he might sit, knows that the communists have been organizing for years to take over South Africa if they can. South Africa has always been, for many reasons, the Naboth's vineyard on which they have cast covetous eyes. South Africa has always formed part of their world plan. The fact that at the moment there is a cold war in progress and not a shooting war in no way alters the fact that it is their object to get South Africa within their power, even if it is only because of its strategic position, apart from all the other considerations they have in mind. May I remind hon. members in passing that as far as the communists are concerned they have never made any essential distinction between a cold war and any other sort of war. As far as they are concerned, they have always been in a state of war with the Western world and with the democracies, of which South Africa is one.

What do I envisage in regard to this measure? The timeous steps taken by one of my predecessors in passing the 1950 Act, ³ and the other steps taken by my predecessors, after that date, have been of enormous value to South Africa. I want to emphasise the fact, that, in spite of the opposition of hon. members opposite, if those measures had not been taken at the time by my predecessors, South Africa would to-day have been a different place instead of the peaceful country we know it to be to-night. If it were not for the fact that the Communist Party was banned and that the ANC and the PAC were banned, ⁴ South Africa would have looked very different today. Hon. members are aware that when those organizations were banned many of their members fled abroad. Hon. members are also aware that from abroad these people, with the consent and encouragement of the African states, are organizing against South Africa on every front and at every level. For purposes of my argument to-night I need not go into this aspect more deeply. Hon. members can read such reports in the Press every day and therefore know what the position in this regard is. As I have said, many of them fled, and particularly the non-White section of the communist front which existed in South Africa. However, all of them did not flee, and particularly the majority of the White members of that organization remained here. I have no hesitation in saying, and I do not apologize for saying so again tonight - I have already said it in public - that in my opinion I believe the time has arrived, and in fact it has become high time, to devote more attention particularly to the White agitators in South Africa. You will remember that when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Ad­ministration and Development ⁵ last year discussed the difficulties and problems in the Transkei, and when he referred to the riots which happened there, he inter alia made the statement in this House that those riots and the murders committed in the Transkei were caused by White communists who incited the Bantu there. Hon. members opposite laughed heartily when he made that statement. After those riots certain court cases followed in the Transkei. People were charged with all kinds of crimes committed during the rioting. After the conclusion of the trial of one group who were charged with murder, the attorney for that group, a non-White with the name of Mr. Swartz, a well-known attor­ney in the Transkei, was placed in the witness-box by the advocate for the defence. He then gave evidence under oath in mitigation of the sentences of this group of people who were charged with murder. I want to read to the House an extract from that evidence, which in my opinion is highly significant. He said, inter alia - "Certain persons, while regarded as the instigators of this trouble, took advantage of a grievance that the Bantu people felt because they have to pay increased taxes, in order to embarrass the Government and the Bantu Authorities system." The advocate then asked him -

"From your information, was it quite common that they took advan­tage of this discontent in these territories?"

And his reply was: "So I understood." The Judge-President then asked him:

"What were these agitators' aspirations, political or communistic?" To which his reply unambiguously was: "Communistic influence." The advocate then put the following question to him:

"And has the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs stated that White communists have been behind the organization and that he even had the names?"

To that he replied, "Yes". The next question was then put to him:

"Is that borne out by what you have been able to discover?" To that his reply was: "That is borne out by what I discovered." The Judge-President thereupon asked him:

"How does the objection to rehabilitation come in?" His reply was: "The Bantu Authorities system is in charge of all the local government in the territories and then these agitators would go to the people and say: "Your taxes have been raised and the taxes have been raised by the Bantu Authorities, and the people who constitute the Bantu Authorities are the chiefs; so we must get rid of the Bantu Authorities and the chiefs. The Bantu Authorities have also accepted rehabilitation for betterment measures for those territories, and as a result of that the number of cattle you are able to possess is reduced."

This particular attorney then continued to say that an order was issued for people to be murdered. The Judge-President then asked him:

"Does the order, if I may call it that, to destroy kraals and people who do not attend meetings, does that come from an instruction from head office?"

The "head office" to which he referred was the White communists. His reply to that question was: "That is the instruction from head office." So I can go on clearly illustrating that in Pondoland we had a very striking example of what these White agitators and communists achieved. It cost the lives of many innocent people before that unrest me to an end.

I have been placed in the position where in the first place I am responsible for law and order in this country, to ensure that there is peaceful co-existence in South Africa, and to guard against anarchy, chaos and disruption. Because that is my task, hon. members can expect me to give an appreciation of the position, and to come forward with measures to combat that position. Hon. members opposite would be the first to reproach me if I closed the stable door after the horse had been stolen. That is why I am introducing this measure. I say that I am required to give an appreciation of the position. Now, what does this appreciation show which I have made for myself and which I am sure every hon. member opposite has made for himself?

The first fact staring us in the face is that the cold war throughout the world has been stepped up. Why should it therefore not also be stepped in South Africa? The second fact is that the Communist Party in South Africa, which was paralysed, is getting its second breath; that its object is totally to destroy all that we stand for on this side of the House, well as what hon. members opposite say they stand for; that it has come to the conclusion that it will have to use force to attain that objective; and, finally, that in fact they have used force. All hon. members know that sabotage has taken place in South Africa. Hon. members also know from the Press reports which appeared at the time that these were isolated instances of sabotage which took place, but that is was accurately calculated sabotage which was committed on the same day and at practically the same time in seven or eight different places. Therefore it was not isolated saboteurs who took action. It was accurately planned action by people who are in close association with one another and who are well organized. I make bold to say - because that is how I see it - that they came to the conclusion that they had, as it were, so conditioned the outside world by means of the propaganda they had made against us, that nobody would take any notice of it if they acted in that way in South Africa. They also anticipated that if they took such action they could still to some extent depend on the sympathy and protection of sections of the English Press, and the recent happenings show that they were correct in holding those views. I do not want to bore hon. members with all the reports, but it clearly appears from reports which I receive from time to time that not only have they decided to commit sabotage, but that they in fact have committed sabotage. One of those who fled abroad thought fit to say the following, according to a recent Press report:

"What happened in the North of Africa is now moving to the south. Algeria will look like a little social party compared with what can happen in South Africa."

I am referring here to a statement by Oliver Tambo. That is there­fore what these people are planning. In passing, I also want to refer to an article which appeared in January 1962, in a Ghanaian newspaper, Voice of Africa, in which the following was said:

"The African is prepared to pay for his freedom. The target date for the total liberation of every inch of the African Continent is December 1963. No part of Africa, not even the off-shore islands, will remain under the influence of a colonial power after this date. We know the price is expensive, but the soul and the flesh of the modern African is willing. We can pay. Any African who thinks otherwise, is in the opposite camp. Surely he will be smashed with the enemy. To us the frantic moves by the die-hard colonialists like Verwoerd, Welensky and Salazar only show their awareness that there are forces in Africa powerful enough to reduce them to a mere pulp of quivering jelly."

That is what they say they are preparing themselves for. And in case hon. members do not want to believe this, in spite of the manifestations of sabotage we have had, I want to refer to an article which appeared in the New York Post. In it reference is made to the "Liberation Committee", which said that it had committed the sabotage in South Africa. The article then reads as follows:

"Who is on this Committee about which nothing has been heard until now? Spokesmen for it and contacts with the organization say that it has branches throughout South Africa. The main contact has been set up in London. Africans and Whites belong to the underground. Its operations are non-violent where people are concerned; sabotage against specific parcels of property is the No. 1 goal."

This article concludes as follows, and I want to submit it to hon. members opposite for their consideration:

"The whole movement is still deeply mysterious and for the present quite publicity-shy. Wherever it may turn and whatever its fate may be, the Committee is still worthy of some notice now. If you roll back so many years, you will find that the FLN in Algeria got its start the same way, through sabotage. Nobody paid any atten­tion, though."

It is for that reason that in the light of the information available to me, and in the light of the things which are said and written, and with due consideration to the organizations of which I am aware, I consider it my duty to take timeous action in regard to this matter. And when we say that we must take action, the question may be asked what should be done. Surely there is none of us who is so naive as to believe that there are no communists in our country? In spite of the fact that we have limited their activities and tried to render them harmless by means of legislation, the communists here are organized in cells at a high level, and it is the duty of every one of us to render them harmless, wherever and whenever we can do so. To me it follows like the day follows the night that it is our second task to deprive them of their means of propaganda and opportunities wherever we can do so. Thirdly, we must deal with the saboteurs who are here in South Africa, whether they have already committed overt acts or whether they are still making prepara­tions to that effect. Unless we are prepared to do so, we are living in a fool's paradise. Hon. members may suggest that I cannot or that I may not take steps against these people. Let me anticipate that by saying that my task would then be an impossible one and that I would no longer be able to continue carrying out my task. If we are in earnest, then we must take steps against those people, and if we are not in earnest but adopt the attidude which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently adopts, namely that it is not necessary to take any steps in South Africa, then I say that as surely as the sun is going to rise tomorrow we will pay the price for it.

A few weeks ago the underground ANC sent out a circular letter in which, amongst other things, the following statements appeared:

"But the material is now at hand from which we can recruit a great army to work in secret against our enemies. Definitely an enormous amount is needed and can be done if only sufficient numbers of people are willing to adopt an active policy of non-co-operation. Truly it is not sufficient merely to hinder the Nats in small things; we must form our boldest spirits into sabotage groups."

That is what they say. Indeed, that is what some of them are preparing themselves for. The fact that acts of sabotage have already been committed clearly shows to what extent these people have already made their preparations. And when I say this, hon. members on the other side may ask me whether this means that we are sitting on a powder keg South Africa. My reply to that question is "No". But what we do say and that is our only object here - is that we are not going to allow powder to be thrown into the keg and then still allow that powder to ignited. That is our only object with this Bill. Does that mean, as has already been suggested in newspaper articles, that we want to stifle criticism and that we want to destroy the rule of law in South Africa? This Bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nothing at all. But since the charge has been made against me that that is my object, I want to declare emphatically that it is not my intention nor the Government's intention to restrict freedom of speech in any way. There was a time when freedom of speech was restricted, but that was in the days when hon. members opposite were in power. And if they do not want to believe me, let them ask my ex-colleague. General Moolman, the MP for East London (City). I want to say empahtically that this Bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and I want to ask hon. members opposite in advance not to come along in this debate again with the argument about a police state. They have already created so many police states in South Africa that I have lost count of the number. I would also ask them to stop ascribing Nazi motives to me and others. They have done it so often in the past that nobody believes them any longer. I hope too that they are not going to come along with the Black Sash argument, that the flame of freedom is being extinguished in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, when one thinks how many times this little flame of freedom has already been extinguished, one is amazed to hear that it can be extinguished once again. What a flame it must be! I just want to say that it has been stated by the Black Sash that their opposition to this Bill is due to the fact "that the Bill means the loss of liberties for all South Africans". Mr. Speaker, not even the liberty of the members of the Progressive Party, or the liberty of their latest recruit, Mr. Centlivres, is in danger. I have received a letter from a very prominent person, who in his time played a leading role in the United Party, and I want to quote the following extract from his letter which I regard as one of the best reasons why we should introduce this Bill:

"I notice that a strenuous attack was made upon you on Sunday in the English-language Press, but you are not going to allow that to deter you. Nobody is keen on departures from our tried rules of procedure and evidence, but they were formulated at a time when the circumstances were completely different from those prevailing today. They were designed to protect the ordinary law-abiding citizen against an autocratic ruler. To-day it is the State that has to be protected, and it has to be protected against subversive activities designed to break down the structure of the State. The modus operandi of those elements is that while they themselves do not abide by any legal rules they rely on the fact that the State is obliged to abide by rules or procedure and evidence which are ineffective against such activities and which they know how to circumvent with ease. These subversive activities must be fought in the interests of the safety of the State, and no honest thinker can blame you or the Government for taking the powers which are necessary for that purpose."

That is my reply in anticipation to hon. members who are going to accuse me of wishing to destroy the rule of law in South Africa. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to remind hon. members that the great American lawyer, Wigmore, asked on one occasion, "Why the sudden concern for criminals?" My question this evening is, "Why this sudden concern for communists in South Africa?" I want to repeat that this Bill is not being introduced with any of the motives which are being as­cribed to me; this Bill is designed purely and simply to render the subversive elements and the communists harmless. But I want to say this. It must have been very pleasant for the communists to see how many sympathizers they have in South Africa nowadays. It must have been very pleasant indeed for them to know that they can rely, to be specific, on the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party. It must have been very gratifying for them to know how many friends they have in the editorial offices of the English-language Press in South Africa. But they also receive sympathy from hon. members opposite. I have noticed that certain attacks have been made on this Bill, but except for a casual remark here and there, not a single hon. member on the other side has condemned sabotage or attacked the communists. On the contrary, what has happened is that we have heard reproaches from them that this state of affairs has arisen because of the Government's action and that the Government is to blame for it. What one expected from responsible people in these times was that they would have taken a stand against the danger of sabotage that we have in our midst. I have said that the aim of this Bill is to render the communists harmless and, secondly, to deprive them of the opportunities and the means at their disposal to make propaganda, thirdly, to punish sabotage, and to punish it effectively. Indeed those are the principles which underlie this Bill.

What do we seek to do in this Bill, in conjunction with the provisions of the old Act, to make communists harmless in South Africa? I want to say at once that when steps are taken to meet such a danger there will always be people - and this is perhaps the first thought that occurs to one - who think that our aim is to throw these people in gaol or to put them in internment camps, if necessary. I do not propose to follow either of those methods, and I submit this for the consideration of hon. members, that having regard to the circumstances we should cast our nets much wider in connection with this matter. I refer in the first place to Clause 8 (b) of the Bill which provides that the Minister may have a warning issued through a magistrate to a person who is guilty of communist agitation and activities to cease such agitation. I shall make use of that course if this House accepts this measure. Hon. members may perhaps ask me, "Why, if you say that you can do this, do you not make it obligatory?" My reply to that is that circumstances may arise under which one would not like to take that course, and I shall deal with those circumstances in a moment. I certainly expect that many people will make themselves guilty of these activities - because that is our experience - under the delusion that nobody will be aware of the fact that they are doing so, and I want to express the hope that this warning will have the desired effect. But in case it does not have the desired effect - and one must bear in mind the fact that there are some people on whom it will not have that effect - this measure seeks to give me the power to prohibit communists from attending gatherings. That is no new principle in this Bill; it is a principle which has already been accepted by this House. In case he still perseveres with his agitation. Clause 8 (a) gives me the right to confine him to a certain area such as the Peninsula or the Witwaters-rand or a magisterial district. If he should ignore the restrictions placed on him - and there are certain people who have had such restrictions imposed upon them but who still carry on with their agitation - Clause 8 (a) gives me the right to place him under house arrest. Hon. members will recall that during the state of emergency that we had it was necessary, for the sake of the safety of the State, to place certain people under arrest and to imprison them temporarily; and if my predecessor had not taken those steps, many things could have happened and would have happened in South Africa. I should not like to follow that course unless I am forced to do so. If we had had such a measure at that time, many of those people would not have been locked up. In other words, under this Bill I want to act in such a way that the charge cannot be levelled against me that I am depriving a man of his means of livelihood and taking him away from his wife and children. On the contrary, I want to do them the favour of keeping him with them in the house so that he can look after them, as he ought to do, instead of getting up to mischief at night. At this stage I do not want to elaborate on this matter. According to Clause 8 (a) it will be easy for me to allow a person to go to his place of employment during the day to earn his livelihood in the usual way . . .

A Hon. Member: What happens if he is a traveller?

In that case he should join the United Party; then he will be a traveller without any destination. [Laughter.] It will be possible for me, in terms of that clause, to prevent a person from leaving his home during certain hours and to prohibit him from receiving certain visitors or from paying visits. I want to say here unambiguously that in the case of certain communists whose activities do great harm to South Africa, I shall not hesitate for a single moment to apply this clause.

It is essential also, if we want to combat Communism, that we should always know their whereabouts. We have a provision to the effect that foreigners have to notify any change of address to the authorities, and if it is right and proper to require foreigners to do so, then it is certainly a very good thing and absolutely imperative that we should be able to require communists to inform us at all times of their new addresses or places of employment so that we can always know where they are to be bund. Hon. members will find that provision is made for that in Clause 10. Because some of these people have in the past fled the country after they have stirred up trouble. Clause 9 provides that they may be required to report to police offices periodically. Are we asking too much in expecting the communist to report to the police station from time to time if he is ordered to do so? I put that question to hon. members opposite, because these are the principles underlying this Bill which is designed to render communists harmless. Is there anything unreason­able in connection with any of these measures which I have just mentioned? Is there anything unreasonable in them in view of the danger that these people may be to us and the dangers to which they have in fact exposed us? I say that the charge cannot be made against me that these provisions are too drastic in view of the things which these people have told us they are going to do and in view of what they have in fact done in the past. Why this accusation then that we are wiping out free­dom in South Africa, when in fact that is what we propose to do to the communist in South Africa? Surely then it is a hollow argument to say that we want to extinguish the flame of freedom. Surely then it amounts to nothing but protection of the communists and of what they stand for to attack this Bill and to rave against it.

But in the second place one wants to deprive them of their oppor­tunities and means of making propaganda. That is why this Bill makes it possible for me - I refer to Clause 7 (b) - to declare certain places closed to these people, to declare certain meeting places closed to them - and I make no secret of it. As a matter of fact, I have already stated publicly that two of the places which I consider declaring closed places are the Parade in Cape Town and the steps outside the City Hall in Johannesburg. Why do these people hold meetings on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg? For no other reason than to cause a distur­bance and to instigate fighting so that cameramen can photograph these little scenes and demonstrate to the world what a rotten place South Africa is. I want to make the accusation here that the only reason why meetings are held on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg, particularly during the lunch-hour and in the presence of the mob that is always there at that time of the day, is to blacken South Africa unnecessarily in the outside world and to bring about unnecessary friction here. No decent person or party or organization holds a meeting in that way. It only does so when it is actuated by other motives.

Then there are the Sunday gatherings on the Parade in Cape Town, where they use the strongest loudspeakers that one can get. People living in blocks of flats nearby are continually complaining to me about the disturbances that take place on the Parade on Sundays. But that is not all; it has seldom if ever happened at these gatherings that people have not been incited in a reckless fashion. The Parade is a parking area where people leave their motor-cars; women and children move about on the Parade, and it has already happened that people have almost been killed as the result of the action of the speakers on those occasions. I think it is good and proper and fair that the communists should be deprived of that opportunity.

But if you want to deprive them of their propaganda opportunities, then it has also become necessary, as it has been found necessary in the past, to ban certain newspapers in South Africa. The old Act provides that the publication of newspapers may be forbidden, and hon. members will know that in terms of the provisions of that Act the publication of certain newspapers was in fact forbidden. They will recall that the Guardian was the mouthpiece and the propaganda organ of the com­munists, and they know that to this very day its editor is still an out­spoken and active communist. Hon. members will remember that the Guardian was banned and that the moment it was banned it appeared under a different name. That name was abandoned and then it ap­peared under a different name again, and subsequently it appeared under the name Advance, and when the publishing of Advance was prohibited it appeared under the name New Age. Although the old Act laid down that we could prohibit the publication of a newspaper, we came up against the problem unfortunately - and it is that loophole that I want to close - that although all newspapers have to register under the 1934 Act and register their name, these newspapers registered under various names so that when their publication was forbidden under one name they simply appeared the following day under a different name. In the latest issue of New Age there is an article by Mr. Brian Bunting, who was expelled from this House because he was a communist. In that article he briefly sets out the history of the paper and says:

"The banning of the Guardian did not put an end to the people's paper. The very week following the ban the new paper made its appearance on the streets, called the Clarion, and Sam Kahn, new­ly expelled from Parliament, sold a copy of the very first issue to the Minister of Justice outside the House of Assembly. Then the Clarion was forced for technical reasons to change its name, first to the People's World and then to Advance, and when this paper too, was banned by the Government under the Suppression of Communism Act in 1954, a new paper called New Age made its ap­pearance on the streets the very week following the ban."

I make no secret of the fact that one of the newspapers which ought to be forbidden is this paper, New Age, which is the propaganda organ of the Communist Party. Before hon. members come along with the accusation that that is not so, let me refer to page 8 of that newspaper, where greetings are extended to this newspaper on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. Those greetings include greetings from, amongst others, "Moses M. Kotane, former general secretary of the banned Communist Party of South Africa":

"The advent of the Guardian in the South African political scene 25 years ago was an important historical event in the struggle of the working class and oppressed people of this country. The Guardian and its successor, Advance, were suppressed by the tyrants and ex­ploiters of this country because these people's papers spoke and taught the truth. The glorious tradition and heritage of the Guardian is to-day being carried on by the gallant little fighter, New Age. In the absence of our organization . .

- that refers to the Communist Party:

. . . which has been suppressed, and the people's leaders who are banned or banished by the Verwoerd Government, New Age has become our spokesman and the defender of our cause."

That is how this paper writes to proclaim itself as the communist mouthpiece of South Africa. The front page carries the congratulations of the friend of certain hon. members opposite, Albert Luthuli, 6 on the 25th anniversary of this paper and sets out what it has meant to the people of South Africa. The reproach has been levelled at me that Luthuli is not a communist, despite all he has said and done, and I have been blamed for the fact that he has been banished, and it is said that I am not taking action against communists. Hon. members will remember that on the death of Stalin it was Luthuli who described him as "that great apostle of peace". When we take action against him we are told that we are taking action against people who are not in fact communists.

Apart from the fact that we are following the established legal principle that one can ban certain publications, we are also providing in Clause 5 that we shall in the first place clear the list of registered names, and in the second place that if the Minister and the Minister of the Interior have reason to believe that these newspapers will spread com­munistic propaganda, security to an amount not exceeding R20 000 can be required from the publishers of such a newspaper, which amount can be declared forfeited if that newspaper does in fact make itself guilty of communist activities. Every person in South Africa is free to publish a newspaper, but he must know that in future this punishment will be the result if he makes himself guilty of spreading communist propaganda.

But another principle which underlies this Bill, and in terms of which I shall be able to deprive communists of their means of propaganda, will be found in Clause 4 which empowers me to order that persons on whom restrictions have been placed must resign from certain organizations. I make no apology to anyone for not wishing to allow a com­munist to belong to any organization because if he belongs to that organization he is only doing so to misuse it for his own subversive objects, as they have in fact misused many organizations which they have joined in the past.

But it is also the position that when we had placed restriction on communists in the past under the existing legislation and had rendered them harmless in this way, we nevertheless found that they still made statements to newspapers and that those statements were published or that their speeches were still made on their behalf at gatherings. That is why, in terms of Clause 4 (e), the future position will be that when a person is regarded as a communist and such restrictions are placed upon him, he will not have the right to make any statement of whatever nature, nor will anyone have the right to repeat or publish it in public. Here I do not make any apology either that communists will be limited in this way. To achieve this it is necessary, as Clause 6 also provides, that lists of communists can be published in the Government Gazette. Hitherto we have not published these names. It was perhaps a mistake that we did not do so because many of these people masquerade under this or that flag and no one knows that they are in fact communist agitators. But apart from this aspect of the matter, the reason why we shall now publish these names is that everyone will be considered to know who are listed communists and on whom restrictions have been placed, so that people can know not to publish, broadcast or print their speeches. But because we want to be reasonable, we realize that since the 1956 lists were drawn up, some people are no longer active and that some of them have come to different beliefs and are no longer active communists. However, the existing legislation does not provide for the removal of anyone's name from these lists. I know of several people of whom this is in fact true, namely that they are no longer indulging in communist activities and in that case I am quite prepared - and this clause will allow me to do so - to remove their names from the list of communists.

But I also refer hon. members to the other principle which underlies this Bill, namely that under the existing legislation the State President has the right to ban certain organizations and provision is made for machinery which must first be put into operation before this can be done. This takes a long time and much time elapses before such an organization can be banned. A new principle which is being introduced by this Bill - and I ask hon. members what is unfair about it - is that if the State President is convinced (I am referring to Clause 2 of the Bill) that an organization has been established for the purpose of, or that an existing organization is carrying on the objects of an unlawful organization, he can ban that organization immediately. Hon. members must not tell me that in making this provision we are going too far. They can just look over our borders to see how practical such a measure is. There we have the position that the Rhodesian Government saw fit to ban a certain political party - I think it was the Rhodesian People's Party -and the very next day the same party, with the same leaders and the same offices, continued as the Zimbabwe People's Party. Must one then put all this machinery in operation de novo while we know that this is exactly the same organization which is merely carrying on under a different name? I therefore do not apologize either for the fact that we are going to deprive them of their propaganda instruments in this way. I refer only in passing to Clause 16 which has been introduced to facilitate matters. Hon. members will remember that when we had a state of emergency in 1960, the state of emergency was actually here in Cape Town, but to combat it effectively and to apply the regulations effectively, it was necessary to declare even Stellenbosch, Paarl, Wellington and Worcester to be emergency areas. I do not want to have a repetition of that and Clause 16 therefore provides that if there is a state of emergency in one area, one can make certain regulations applicable in other districts where a state of emergency does not exist without causing disruption by declaring a state of emergency in such area. Once again I submit that this is a reasonable provision taking into account the experience which we have had in the past.

Clause 17 extends for another 12 months the validity of the 12 days provision which has been used in the past and which lapses in June of this year. Hon. members have seen, with the sabotage which has taken place and the arrests which were made, how necessary it has been to have that provision on the Statute Book and I therefore propose that this provision should be extended for another year.

Clause 18 - I only refer to it in passing - deals with the onus resting on certain persons who go abroad without authority. The clause is self-evident and I need not discuss it in any further detail.

Then in conclusion I come to Clause 21, the sabotage clause, which has given this Bill its name amongst hon. members opposite.

I want to concede at once, and hon. members need not criticize me in this regard, that the clause is worded widely. I want to admit and concede this at once, but I say at the same time that if we want to take any effective action at all against these people, this clause must of necessity be worded so widely. I therefore do not apologize for the fact that this is so. It is a fact that sabotage has never been a substantive offence in South Africa. When sabotage has been committed in the past, and we have charged the person concerned with the damaging of property or something else, the public have asked: Why do you charge him with the damaging of property and not with sabotage? I think it is high time that we call a spade a spade also in the Statute Book of South Africa. For that reason Clause 21 provides that sabotage will be a substantive offence. I have now received complaints and these complaints have also appeared in newspapers, that this provision is worded too widely, that it mil affect innocent persons, that it places the onus on the accused, that it is introducing a procedure into the courts which is foreign to our legal system, that it vests great responsibilities in our Attorneys-General, and that I do not have confidence in the judiciary of South Africa. Before answering these questions, I ask myself what the object of a saboteur is and how he operates? He is a person who wants to make impossible or to destroy the established Government, law and order either through nationwide action or through isolated actions. In other words, he wants to enforce his will and wishes by criminal means. His object is to create chaos and to paralyse the country. We have already had various threats from the communists that they will create chaos in South Africa, that they will paralyse the country. We now examine the Bill and we ask how the saboteur achieves this aim and what the clause lays down sabotage will be. If we examine the sub-sections of this clause one by one, then I make bold to say that there is not one which is unreason­able, if we see it against the background of the danger which we must combat. Firstly there is reference to the endangering of the health or safety of the public. Is there one single member opposite who will say that we should not take action against people who endanger the health and safety of the public? Secondly this clause lays down that it will be an offence to put essential services out of action. This is what the saboteur would like to do in order to facilitate the take-over which he envisages. Thirdly, this clause refers to the putting out of action of transport services. These are the three principles which are basic to this Bill, together with the fourth which relates to the damaging or destruction of property. These are the only four principles which hon. members will find in this clause and which we want to make liable to the penalty for "sabotage", namely if they endanger the health and safety of the public, if they put essential services out of action, if they put transport services out of action and if they damage or destroy property. This the saboteur does either through nation-wide action or he does so by the use of arms or explosives. This is what hon. members will find in this clause about which such a tremendous fuss is being made, so much so that the heavens are almost falling down.